At What Point Did You Decide That You Were Against Obama No Matter What?

[Oldstyle]

I mean does anyone here REALLY want to contend that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Al Gore was elected instead of George W. Bush? Gore was the VP while the Clinton White House underestimated Osama bin Laden. What makes you think he would have seen things differently as the President?

 

[MarcATL]

That just shows how idiotic you are Marc. Bush was POTUS for EIGHT MONTHS when 9-11 rolled around. Clinton was POTUS for 8 YEARS. The planning all took place under his watch. His FBI dropped the ball. Its easy to blame Bush because he was POTUS but Clinton is way more to answer for. His FBI with the exception of John O'Neil didn't take the threats seriously.

I'm wondering if Clintons FBI even passed O'Neils vague info on to Bush's administration. I always assumed they did. Hell. They didn't believe O'Neil so now I wonder if they even bothered to pass that vauge info on to the new administration.

You can blame Bush all you want because he was POTUS but any thinking person will be taking a good hard look at Clinton's FBI.

Clinton also refused to take UBL when the Sudan offered him up on a silver platter. If he had taken that dirtbag they might have been able to get the particulars on the attack that was in the works. Of course you don't want to hear that. You're to busy blamming Bush. God your blind.

You can blame Bush all you wamt. ME? I'll blame the dirtbags who flew the planes and the dirtbags who planned it. I know most of em are rotting in hell.

And as I said. Clinton is on his knees every night thanking God that AQ waited until he was out of office before they struck. I sure as hell would be.

The radical bastards of the far right-wing fringe placed the economy on Obama's lap the INSTANT he swore in, claiming it was his and his alone.

Bush had 8 months to get his act together to STOP the WORST terrorist attack on US soil in history from occurring. He failed.

To top it off, just a year or two previously when Clinton made efforts to bring these plannings to the attention to the public and Congress they shot that down, preferring instead to wage their partisan political ware to impeach him for lying about a BJ.

No, this is Baby Bush's and his alone to bare.

He absolutely FAILED to protect us from being attacked.

The planning of the attacks started in 1996 when Al Qaeda had gone back to Afghanistan from the Sudan. Their first attack was the African Embassy bombings and I suppose you blame Clinton for that. In late 1997 Bin Laden issued his first fatwa against the US as the strategy of the African bombings was to discover any and all weaknesses around the globe and inside the US. Clinton was to be President for 3 more years and it was Clinton that let Bin Laden go when the CIA had a sniper team in place to kill him with the finger on the trigger.
You fail to mention any of that. How come Clinton did not protect us?
Because he is a Democrat and you give them a free pass.
In 1998 the plot to bomb the Pentagon, the twin towers and other DC government buildings was finalized. Half of the terrorists arrived in country UNDER Clinton's watch.
So quit the blame game BS on the 911 attacks.

No matter WHAT you say, the absolute FACT remains that under Baby Bush's not-so-careful watch, the WORST terrorist attack on US soil occurred.

No amount of partisan spin, opinion or conjecture can change that.

Them's the breaks kid.

 

[MarcATL]

I mean does anyone here REALLY want to contend that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Al Gore was elected instead of George W. Bush? Gore was the VP while the Clinton White House underestimated Osama bin Laden. What makes you think he would have seen things differently as the President?

Ahhh...yes, corner a RWer into accepting the facts and watch 'em start to speculate and imagine.

Good show.

 

[MarcATL]

Nope. I credit the Iranians with having the sense to realize that Reagan wasn't Carter. they had to good sense to release the hostages.

As for 9-11. You are all set to blame Bush while conveniently forgetting that 9-11 was years in the planning. That planning took place under Clinton. One would think his FBI would catch at clue that something was up. John O'Neil sure did. To bad they didn't listen to him.

As for Bush's 8 months?? One has to wonder if the FBI even passed O'Neils warning on. If they did then Bush should have shut the whole country down. After all. No one knew where, when or how this attack was going to go down.

Yup. Bush should have shut the country down till they got all the facts. I'm sure the folks would have just loved that. Yup. I'm sure that would have gone over like a fart in church.

So tell me Marc. What should Bush have done if he even got those warnings that the Clinton FBI?? Your so smart, let us all in on what should have happened.

And BTW. I blame the dirtbags who flew the planes and the dirtbags who planned the attack.

Nice lil trick you are attempting there, but I'm not here to, nor am I going to speculate and imagine what might, could or should have happened.

My simple point is that the FACT of that matter is, that Baby Bush FAILED to keep America safe from THEE WORST attack on US soil that occurred on 09/11/2001

Plain and simple.

 

[Claudette]

The radical bastards of the far right-wing fringe placed the economy on Obama's lap the INSTANT he swore in, claiming it was his and his alone.

Bush had 8 months to get his act together to STOP the WORST terrorist attack on US soil in history from occurring. He failed.

To top it off, just a year or two previously when Clinton made efforts to bring these plannings to the attention to the public and Congress they shot that down, preferring instead to wage their partisan political ware to impeach him for lying about a BJ.

No, this is Baby Bush's and his alone to bare.

He absolutely FAILED to protect us from being attacked.

The planning of the attacks started in 1996 when Al Qaeda had gone back to Afghanistan from the Sudan. Their first attack was the African Embassy bombings and I suppose you blame Clinton for that. In late 1997 Bin Laden issued his first fatwa against the US as the strategy of the African bombings was to discover any and all weaknesses around the globe and inside the US. Clinton was to be President for 3 more years and it was Clinton that let Bin Laden go when the CIA had a sniper team in place to kill him with the finger on the trigger.
You fail to mention any of that. How come Clinton did not protect us?
Because he is a Democrat and you give them a free pass.
In 1998 the plot to bomb the Pentagon, the twin towers and other DC government buildings was finalized. Half of the terrorists arrived in country UNDER Clinton's watch.
So quit the blame game BS on the 911 attacks.

No matter WHAT you say, the absolute FACT remains that under Baby Bush's not-so-careful watch, the WORST terrorist attack on US soil occurred.

No amount of partisan spin, opinion or conjecture can change that.

Them's the breaks kid.

No. You just don't want to admit that the attack was planned on Clintons watch. His FBI dropped the ball. Who knows if they even passed O'Neils warning to the new administration?? The warning that they ignored.

Clinton also refused UBL on a silver platter from the Sudan.

Thems the breaks kid.

 

[MarcATL]

The planning of the attacks started in 1996 when Al Qaeda had gone back to Afghanistan from the Sudan. Their first attack was the African Embassy bombings and I suppose you blame Clinton for that. In late 1997 Bin Laden issued his first fatwa against the US as the strategy of the African bombings was to discover any and all weaknesses around the globe and inside the US. Clinton was to be President for 3 more years and it was Clinton that let Bin Laden go when the CIA had a sniper team in place to kill him with the finger on the trigger.
You fail to mention any of that. How come Clinton did not protect us?
Because he is a Democrat and you give them a free pass.
In 1998 the plot to bomb the Pentagon, the twin towers and other DC government buildings was finalized. Half of the terrorists arrived in country UNDER Clinton's watch.
So quit the blame game BS on the 911 attacks.

No matter WHAT you say, the absolute FACT remains that under Baby Bush's not-so-careful watch, the WORST terrorist attack on US soil occurred.

No amount of partisan spin, opinion or conjecture can change that.

Them's the breaks kid.

No. You just don't want to admit that the attack was planned on Clintons watch. His FBI dropped the ball. Who knows if they even passed O'Neils warning to the new administration?? The warning that they ignored.

Clinton also refused UBL on a silver platter from the Sudan.

Thems the breaks kid.

Don't cry baby...it's going to be OK.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Look at that, Marc found the only person on the board more ignorant than he is.

Mac is very intelligent. You just said that because he made you look like the chump that you are.

Oh? And just why pray tell is Marc intelligent? It would not happen to be because he is a fellow liberal now, would it?
All you have sweetie, is name calling and regurgitating of liberal whine talking points.
You complain about everything. You're a whiner.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You can squirm, twist and spin all you want, but at least you have enough sense to realize that Baby Bush was to blame. It's good to know that even the likes of you have to acknowledge Bush's failure in that.

Kudos.

Why would the lies of a partisan hack make me "squirm?"

Dude, the idiocy of you hacks is absurd.

"Al Qaeda and bin Laden determined to attack."

That is 100% of the information Clinton provided Bush.

"Al Qaeda and bin Laden determined to attack."

Wow - what great intel.

"Al Qaeda and bin Laden determined to attack."

Must mean that on 9/11/01 commercial airlines would be hijacked to be used as Kamakazi bombs.

I mean, "Al Qaeda and bin Laden determined to attack." tells everything, doesn't it, hack?

You wonder why you have zero credibility? This is why.

 

[theHawk]

The planning of the attacks started in 1996 when Al Qaeda had gone back to Afghanistan from the Sudan. Their first attack was the African Embassy bombings and I suppose you blame Clinton for that. In late 1997 Bin Laden issued his first fatwa against the US as the strategy of the African bombings was to discover any and all weaknesses around the globe and inside the US. Clinton was to be President for 3 more years and it was Clinton that let Bin Laden go when the CIA had a sniper team in place to kill him with the finger on the trigger.
You fail to mention any of that. How come Clinton did not protect us?
Because he is a Democrat and you give them a free pass.
In 1998 the plot to bomb the Pentagon, the twin towers and other DC government buildings was finalized. Half of the terrorists arrived in country UNDER Clinton's watch.
So quit the blame game BS on the 911 attacks.

No matter WHAT you say, the absolute FACT remains that under Baby Bush's not-so-careful watch, the WORST terrorist attack on US soil occurred.

No amount of partisan spin, opinion or conjecture can change that.

Them's the breaks kid.

No. You just don't want to admit that the attack was planned on Clintons watch. His FBI dropped the ball. Who knows if they even passed O'Neils warning to the new administration?? The warning that they ignored.

Clinton also refused UBL on a silver platter from the Sudan.

Thems the breaks kid.

You'll never get through to hacks like Marc, all he has is blame 'Boooooooooooooooosh.'

Just look at his reasons for hating Bush- "he kept the country in state of constant fear".

 

[thereisnospoon]

So your point is the worst recession since the Great Depression has the worst recovery. It's hard to take such bullshit objections seriously. Where have you been lately that you can't figure out why this recovery is so slow? You damn well know the Repubicans have been suggesting the exact opposite of what would make a quick recovery. You damn well know they have obstructed government all the way through this economic disaster. We had growth that would be good economic growth, but the Repubican free trade agreements put the benefits of that growth in other countries and not here. Take a look at what happened to the Republican Party during the Great Depression! The 70th United States Congress served from March 4, 1927 – March 4, 1929. It had Republican (R): 48 (majority) and Democratic (D): 46 in the Senate and Republican (R): 238 (majority) and Democratic (D): 194 in the House. That's definitely before the Great Depression, so I'll just post the data and let's see what happened to the Democrats and Republicans.

71st United States Congress, March 4, 1929 – March 4, 1931

Senate

Republican (R): 56 (majority)
Democratic (D): 39

House

Republican (R): 270 (majority)
Democratic (D): 164

72nd United States Congress, March 4, 1931 – March 4, 1933

Senate

Republican (R): 48 (majority)
Democratic (D): 47

House

Democratic (D): 217 (majority)
Republican (R): 217

The 73rd United States Congress served from March 4, 1933 – January 3, 1935. The Senate had 59 Democrats, 36 Republicans and 1 Farm-Labor that caucused with the Democrats when it started. That is a clear supermajority. By the time the Congress ended and Repubicans changed to Democrats, the Democrats had 70 Senators and the Republicans had 23. There was 1 of each of a Farm-Labor, Progressive and Vacant. Obviously, the Democrats had a clear majority in the Senate. The same thing happened in the House with Democrats having nearly a 3 to 1 advantage at the start and their Democratic caucus had 332 to the 103 Republicans at the end of that Congress.

The point is the Republicans were politically removed from the government and had no power. That hasn't been the case in the Great Recession, which had a larger financial crisis than the Great Depression. The big difference is we had the tools and the knowledge to prevent a complete economic collapse. Hoover didn't have what we have today and Roosevelt had to figure out what to do, because they were in uncharted waters. Hoover's mistake was having Mellon as Secretary of the Treasury and Mellon tried to run the economy like a business to pay down war debt and make the books look good. They even increased tariffs, which was the exact opposite of what to do in an economy with obvious problems since '29.



Our Ambassador wasn't in an Embassy and was at a "safe house." I suspect al Qaeda involvement, but do you have any proof of it? al Qaeda bombed two Embassies in Africa with very many losing their lives and no one tried to blame a President. This isn't the first Ambassador we've lost according to what I've heard. I think it's just more partisan politics and doesn't compare to things like the Marine Barracks being bombed in Lebanon and the President pulling the troops out of the country.

You made the point about al Qaeda being stronger now and it has France kicking it's ass in Africa. There are pockets of al Qaeda left and they are constantly losing people. The governments are even fighting against them. al Qaeda likes to join in with rebels, but they are like the kiss of death to rebels who allow them to join. They generate opposition that would be absent without them and it's becoming counter productive to have them around.



Explain how you could know that? Are you telling me I couldn't do one better on Bush and use electronic tracking inside weapons and ammo instead of human tracking? How do you know what's involved when they are tracking weapons to their destination and what kind of investigations can become involved with the intelligence gathered. This again is just a partisan witch hunting and can't have the real facts involved in the hack job, because the details have never been made public. There can be very good reasons to keep information gather by intelligence a secret for a long time until it's acted on with success. Even then, there can be reasons not to devulge what was done.



You Republicans are masters at being liars, but you can't make a career out of lying to the same people. People will figure it out and the Republicans can't get their way of the economy. If they mess it up, they will pay for doing it and no one is going to buy their ideological reasons for doing it. I expect the Senate to compromise and not keep playing the obstruction game like they did in Obama's first term. If the House doesn't compromise, then I expect the Republicans to lose the majority at the next election. The only things the Republicans can do is what they have been doing and that's to slow down the economic recovery. Their economic ideology isn't going to make any improvement and their pure version can't make it into law. I expect them to try to get as much as they can and compromise. The days of the Tea Party having power over policy are over. They can only increase the rate of their decline.

The Republicans took over the House in January 2011. According to Obama's team the economy was going to be in full recovery mode by then.

Blaming Republicans for the stimulus failure is just foolish.

I've been in political forums much longer than the report containing that chart. I was there when idiots like you first made that claim about what Obama said, so I posted the report. Throughout the report and on both sides of that chart were disclaimers, saying it was just an estimate. The unemployment rate exceeded the chart when the report was made public, proving that the estimates were done long before in the Bush administration. You right-wingers know the facts, but you insist on lying after it's been proven a lie over and over. What a bunch of lying ass losers you right-wingers are!

And once again as we have seen countless times on this board, when a lib's argument runs out of factual steam he or she plays the "liar" card.
You're done pal.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's safe to say that for most users, it was when they first saw him, or found out what he was, etc.

There are the few others who aren't total right winged nuts and actually have a reason.

And then there are the almost extinct bunch who still act like adults about their political views and obama.

I think most are just partisan hacks hell-bent on only seeing/finding wrong in the other party...specially those on the right.

You fall into the category of liberals who are incensed over the mere existence of a non liberal point of view.
You cannot accept disagreement with Obama. So you call it hate. Some of you pin your hopes on racism. All in all you people have your minds made it up that these are the only two possible motives for those who oppose Obama. Hate or racism.
So, why did you bother starting this thread when you are already convinced that all non liberals are radicals?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Have you ever wondered why you may get the impression that people like me think you right-wingers make shit up or do you just wonder: How in the hell did he know?"

No one wonders, dubya. You're a partisan liar - shameless in fact. And you're stupid as a lamp post.

Your behavior is driven by these two facts.


I'm just sayin....

No. A lamp post is much smarter. At least it carries atop of it something useful. A light.
Dubya carries empty space atop of him.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How am I a hypocrite now?

Blaming Bush for acts not under his control whilst condemning those who blame Obama in the same way.

You have one set of standards for Bush, and a VASTLY different set for Obama.

You know what? From what I read while on here, the right wingers seem to blame Obama for everything bad going on in the country. Would you say that is about correct?

And Bush is not held accountable for anything bad that happened under his Presidency. Does that sound about right?

And you think that is the correct way to judge the two Presidencies. One is not responsible for anything and the other is responsible for everything.

Only in a right wing partisan hacks mind could that be true.

This is just another way of blaming others for what is occurring under Obama's watch.
He's in his 5th year of his Presidency and you people STILL cannot get off the predecessor.
Hey, newsflash now that Obama is in his second term, he IS the predecessor.

 

[Gadawg73]

The radical bastards of the far right-wing fringe placed the economy on Obama's lap the INSTANT he swore in, claiming it was his and his alone.

Bush had 8 months to get his act together to STOP the WORST terrorist attack on US soil in history from occurring. He failed.

To top it off, just a year or two previously when Clinton made efforts to bring these plannings to the attention to the public and Congress they shot that down, preferring instead to wage their partisan political ware to impeach him for lying about a BJ.

No, this is Baby Bush's and his alone to bare.

He absolutely FAILED to protect us from being attacked.

The planning of the attacks started in 1996 when Al Qaeda had gone back to Afghanistan from the Sudan. Their first attack was the African Embassy bombings and I suppose you blame Clinton for that. In late 1997 Bin Laden issued his first fatwa against the US as the strategy of the African bombings was to discover any and all weaknesses around the globe and inside the US. Clinton was to be President for 3 more years and it was Clinton that let Bin Laden go when the CIA had a sniper team in place to kill him with the finger on the trigger.
You fail to mention any of that. How come Clinton did not protect us?
Because he is a Democrat and you give them a free pass.
In 1998 the plot to bomb the Pentagon, the twin towers and other DC government buildings was finalized. Half of the terrorists arrived in country UNDER Clinton's watch.
So quit the blame game BS on the 911 attacks.

No matter WHAT you say, the absolute FACT remains that under Baby Bush's not-so-careful watch, the WORST terrorist attack on US soil occurred.

No amount of partisan spin, opinion or conjecture can change that.

Them's the breaks kid.

So it was FDR's fault the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor under your dumb ass logic Marc.
Give it up Marc, admit you were wrong on this one. Be a man and grow some stones.

 

[Claudette]

Don't hold your breath.

Marc won't admitt he's wrong just like he won't admitt 9-11 was planned under Clintons watch.

The only thing he see's is that the attack was carried out under Bush's watch. Hence its all Bush's fault and Clintons administration was pure as the driven snow.

As OS says I wonder what his thoughts would be if Gore won instead of Bush??

 

[MarcATL]

No matter WHAT you say, the absolute FACT remains that under Baby Bush's not-so-careful watch, the WORST terrorist attack on US soil occurred.

No amount of partisan spin, opinion or conjecture can change that.

Them's the breaks kid.

No. You just don't want to admit that the attack was planned on Clintons watch. His FBI dropped the ball. Who knows if they even passed O'Neils warning to the new administration?? The warning that they ignored.

Clinton also refused UBL on a silver platter from the Sudan.

Thems the breaks kid.

You'll never get through to hacks like Marc, all he has is blame 'Boooooooooooooooosh.'

Just look at his reasons for hating Bush- "he kept the country in state of constant fear".

Are you a palooka or what?

Are you pretending that the Bush Administration didn't stoke fear in the public arena as a strategy to promote and support their war?

 

[MarcATL]

Don't hold your breath.

Marc won't admitt he's wrong just like he won't admitt 9-11 was planned under Clintons watch.

The only thing he see's is that the attack was carried out under Bush's watch. Hence its all Bush's fault and Clintons administration was pure as the driven snow.

As OS says I wonder what his thoughts would be if Gore won instead of Bush??

Wrong about what?

Are you REFUTING the fact that 9/11/2001, the WORST terrorist attack to occur on US soil occurred under George W. Bush's watch?

 

[MarcATL]

The planning of the attacks started in 1996 when Al Qaeda had gone back to Afghanistan from the Sudan. Their first attack was the African Embassy bombings and I suppose you blame Clinton for that. In late 1997 Bin Laden issued his first fatwa against the US as the strategy of the African bombings was to discover any and all weaknesses around the globe and inside the US. Clinton was to be President for 3 more years and it was Clinton that let Bin Laden go when the CIA had a sniper team in place to kill him with the finger on the trigger.
You fail to mention any of that. How come Clinton did not protect us?
Because he is a Democrat and you give them a free pass.
In 1998 the plot to bomb the Pentagon, the twin towers and other DC government buildings was finalized. Half of the terrorists arrived in country UNDER Clinton's watch.
So quit the blame game BS on the 911 attacks.

No matter WHAT you say, the absolute FACT remains that under Baby Bush's not-so-careful watch, the WORST terrorist attack on US soil occurred.

No amount of partisan spin, opinion or conjecture can change that.

Them's the breaks kid.

So it was FDR's fault the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor under your dumb ass logic Marc.
Give it up Marc, admit you were wrong on this one. Be a man and grow some stones.

The WORST terrorist attack on US soil occurred under George W. Bush's watch.

Did it not? Yes or no? It's a simple question.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ive never decided I am against him no matter what. In fact, if he decided to put conservative principles in policy, I'd support him. Im not expecting that. But my objections to him have always been based on principles and policies. I don't want policies in place that will make the nation worse. The President has been doing nothing but putting those bad policies in place.

So until he starts supporting good policies based on sound principles, I will continue to oppose his actions.

You were a supporter of Bush, correct?

Which of his policies were based on sound principles to you?

Which ones were NOT?
I viewed GW Bush as a right leaning populist. One of the aspects of Bush's presidency that incensed liberals was his social spending. In the past increasing the size of or creating of new social programs was the exclusive province of the left.
When the White House came out with No Child Left Behind, democrats were furious. They took shots at that plan. Truth is , the policy was completely liberal in nature. Same goes for Medicare Part D and other increased spending on the program. The liberals in Congress and their main stream media cheerleading section screamed about federal deficits.
Funny how once the democrat party won the majority of seats in both houses of Congress, we had Barney Frank state "we have to get over our fear of deficit spending".
Once again liberals got busted on their double standards.

 

[Gadawg73]

Clinton was the President from 1993-2000.
According to Marc, under his watch it was HIS FAULT that these things happened ON AMERICAN SOIL:
The Branch Davidians slaughter of women, children and ARF agents.
Inaction on the Storm of The Century on the east coast and massive flooding of the Mississippi
Okalhoma City Bombings where Timothy McVeigh killed 168
Truck bomb explodes under World Trade Center killing 6
OJ Simpson murders 2 people
A heat wave kills 780 people in Chicago
Snowstorm on east coast kills 300
TWA flight explodes and kills all aboard 230
Centenial Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta
Matthew Shepherd was brutally killed
Columbine students kill 13
Tornadoes in Oklahoma kill 20
EGypt air crashes killing 240 in Massachussetts
Earthquake kills 80 in LA